Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Follow Up on False Claims Act Actions
You are the Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Pharmaceutical Company ABC. For years, you have been responding to multiple subpoenas from the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office in your District. You have produced hundreds of thousands of documents in response. You have held multiple meetings with Assistant U.S. Attorneys and representatives from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Inspector General (OIG), during which the government has asserted that it is investigating whether ABC has been defrauding the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
You have spent a significant amount of ABC's monies paying an outside law firm to conduct an internal investigation to determine whether the federal government's suspicions are warranted, and to gather evidence to disprove any such suspicions. Your attorneys have engaged a consulting firm at ABC's expense to conduct analytics showing that any falsity in any of the claims submitted was due to error. You have signed tolling agreements in order to avoid being hit with a complaint while your outside counsel continues to investigate. And throughout this whole period, you have been wondering whether there is an underlying False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam that triggered this investigation and that remains under seal.
Imagine then, after six expensive years of investigation, productions and legal fees, the federal government announces it is electing not to intervene and the qui tam is unsealed. Then imagine that upon reviewing the complaint, you realize you have a perfect public disclosure bar defense; that is, you can easily get this qui tam complaint dismissed because Congress issued a report containing all these allegations a month before the complaint was filed. You breathe a sigh of relief.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?